Auto Zeitung comparison test: BMW X6/Mercedes ML/Porsche Cayenne/Range Rover

[Sunny]

No, they are just taking the easy way out...

So I guess all those cars with fat tires are also taking the easy way out. Good to know...

And of course if it is that easy, how come MB doesn't do it too and make there cars turn a bit better? or is the 'easy way' also too hard for MB?

 

[klier]

We need to stay on topic please.

I didn't know Autozeitung is also interested in that crappy Infinity??? Oh wait, they aren't, that car isn't in the test....

Stay on topic GTA, you started this nonsense in post number 20 of this thread.

 

[PanterroR]

GTA, with all those "arguments" you provided and telling us to be real and stay on topic rolleyes, you still didn't convince me (for all it's worth, MT didn't to ) about that tough competition you and they have been talking about. You really think one old (yeah, compared to X6 it's old) Infiniti could outclass a brand new vehicle from BMW like X6? Do you really think so? In fact, does one Infiniti exsists that handles better or has better suspension or overall has better chassis than BMW? I don't think so, prove me wrong please...

Please, do not try to say anything about ext and int styling 'cause that has nothing to do with REAL qualities of the car, it's subjective and in fact, what you've said so far, screams only your aversion towards certain BMW cars and obsession that whatever MB makes is best or at least, "better than BMW in any case". I understand you like MB more, but i won't be quiet while you're having your "period".

PS: I won't have a chance to drive Infiniti soon, but i will try new X6 35d very soon and i'll be glad to tell you if these guys from Top Gear and many other respectable 'zines are just talking crap or that X6 really handles almost like (benchmark) 3 series...or my car...5 series.

 

[dorcollaku]

I still don't understand the point of X6. Cawimmer compared it to the CLS, but while it is the same marketing train of thinking that brought X6 to life, I feel BMW missed the boat with this one.

For one thing, the market is turning against SUV's and gus-guzzlers and the every car company is trying to promote its green credentials. It will be very hard for BMW to make the X6 fall in line with the current zeitgeist. On the other hand, the styling is too forced and I don't see very much imgaination in it. Taking an SUV and mating it with a coupe profile has not produced a succesful sgtyling result. The overall concept is very compromised. As has been emphasised, it manages to combine the worst of the SUV and coupe worlds. It is a brilliant technical excercise no doubt about it - the way X6 appears to handle pushes the SUV performance envelope - but the resources might have been put to a better use elsewhere, like a supercar or Nissan GT-R fighter. X6 might sell well, even fulfilling its expectations, but that says more about BMW's brand image than anything else. The problem is X6 does nothing to advance that brand image.

Overall, I agree with the Autozeitung result. Somehow, practicality or comfort are more important to this segment than outright speed. The fact X6 and the ML might never be cross-shoped is another matter altogether.

 

[bum-man]

So I guess all those cars with fat tires are also taking the easy way out. Good to know...

And of course if it is that easy, how come MB doesn't do it too and make there cars turn a bit better? or is the 'easy way' also too hard for MB?

I can see why you're so bothered. I would be sore too if I was promised that the next "latest and greatest" BMW SUV with all it's high-tech wizardry would redefine the segment instead be beaten by a 5 year old Porsche that actually HAS utility. Do not fret however, there is the F01 just around the corner and it promises to make every other car look like they are from the 1980's, or so the marketing department says.

 

[Mr Robert]

I would be sore too if I was promised that the next "latest and greatest" BMW SUV with all it's high-tech wizardry would redefine the segment instead be beaten by a 5 year old Porsche that actually HAS utility.

Well, the car redefines the segment by sacrificing the utility and making it a good-looking-fun-to-live-with type of car. To say it is a failure simply because it does not have what is was designed to forgo... now that is either ignorance or bad arguments against something you don't like.

...and that seems to be just what AZ did:

The fact that BMW does not win this test is because of its body. But exactly those is independent and with each stop topic for discussion - the X6 finds fast fans. Who puts more value on practical use, can seize to the X5, which already left all competitors behind itself in the test.

No need for further comments.

 

[Zafiro]

OMG what has happen to Infiniti FX. I use to like the car but now I dont recognize it, has the design changed? It looks hideous.
The X6 looks 10 times sexier.

 

[coolraoul]

^^ This is the new one. Looks almost as bad as the first one looked good...

As far as the X6 is concerned... Honestly, unless I have 3 childrens and needs to take half my home with me everytime I take the car, I don't see the point of taking a big utilitarian-looking X5 instead of a sleek and impressive X6.

Every SUV is not made to carry the world with it.
How many young women with one children and nothing else do you see in Chevy Suburbans? Don't you think an X6 is big enough for these women?

Thing is, of course, the zeitgeist does not favour SUVs. But it does not harm their sales too much; and the X6 is not more pointless than a Coupe (a stupid 2-doors, cramped and almost useless for a family).

Why do you take a Coupe over a sedan? looks better.
Why do you take a SUV? to impress the neighbours, or because you feel safe iin it, or because you have a better sight. Not necessarily because it has 9 seats and 20m² boot.
So why not having a Coupe-SUV? Better-looking but a bit cramped? Just because a Coupe shouldn't ride on 20"?

So really, I don't see the problem. An X6 is a better-looking but less practical X5, just like an e92 is a better-looking but less practical e90.

I don't understand those of you who are shocked by the CLS, the X6, and anything new or innovative.

Everycar is stupid and useless next to a Golf. Who needs 700hp? who needs 9G on the skid? Who needs DVD, leather, wood and 19 speakers?

Stop being reasonable, because cars aren't reasonable at all. If they were everybody would have a Logan SW or a Golf.

 

[PanterroR]

 

[Sunny]

Talking about utility, X6 actually has more cargo capacity than a Cayanne (25.6 cubic feet vs 19) or for that matter even more than a E class station wagon (24.9 cubic feet) and probably 5er wagon too. But I am sure these little facts won't come in the way of juvenile outbursts of certain MB fan boys.

 

[Alwing]

Talking about utility, X6 actually has more cargo capacity than a Cayanne (25.6 cubic feet vs 19) or for that matter even more than a E class station wagon (24.9 cubic feet) and probably 5er wagon too. But I am sure these little facts won't come in the way of juvenile outbursts of certain MB fan boys.

That's strange, a 25.56 FT3 is quite a large volume capacity. Even larger than a BMW X5, that can't be right.
According to my sources:

BMW X6
570 - 1450 L
20.13 - 51.21 FT3

BMW X5
620-1750 L
21.89 - 61.80 FT3

BMW 5 Touring
500-1650 L
17.65 - 58.27 FT3

Mercedes E-class Touring
690-1950 L
24.37 - 68.86 FT3

Mercedes M-class
500-2050 L
17.65 - 72.39 FT3

Porsche Cayenne
540-1770 L
19.07 - 62.51 FT3

Still the cargo is quite large for its shape, practical enough for its target market.
I think the BMW did a good job on the X6, its a good looking and desirable car in my opinion.

 

[Zafiro]

I'm with Raoul. A X6 is no different from X5 than a E90 is to a E92. Both are Coupes with smaller trunk and backseat but that always the case with with Sedan vs Coupé.
So you can say a X6 isnt more unessecary than a E92, I can agree with that.

I'm not against a X5 or X6 for existing other than the carsize is way too big for my taste.

 

[bum-man]

Well, the car redefines the segment by sacrificing the utility and making it a good-looking-fun-to-live-with type of car. To say it is a failure simply because it does not have what is was designed to forgo... now that is either ignorance or bad arguments against something you don't like.

...and that seems to be just what AZ did:

The fact that BMW does not win this test is because of its body. But exactly those is independent and with each stop topic for discussion - the X6 finds fast fans. Who puts more value on practical use, can seize to the X5, which already left all competitors behind itself in the test.

No need for further comments.

Oh dear, did I touch a sensitive spot?
First off "good-looking" would be completely subjective, secondly there are plenty other "fun-to-drive" cars out there WITH or WITHOUT utility that don't wear the BMW badge, Thirdly where did I say the X6 was a failure.

Oh and Sunny, insults? Already? I thought we were better than that?

 

[Zafiro]

Oh Bum-man, you are a teaser aren't you

 

[martinbo]

If fine handling was the principle criterion against which SUVs are measured then the Forester STI would've won "World SUV of the Year" way back when. It never did of course...

"Takes more than great handling to make a great SUV".

Sure, the X6 is getting heaps of accolades - particularly in the handling stakes vis a vis the favourable commentary in Top Gear, EVO and what not... So what if it handles spookily - I'd still never buy one. If all that it can do is drive on a rutted dirt road then the Cayenne GTS bests it for prestige, practicality and possibly driving enjoyment. The X6's looks still divide opinion and I will only pass judgement when I see it in the flesh.

The stock, non-AMG ML's are terrific SUVs because of exactly that: they're SUVs. They've got all the road going prowess such a car needs to have and a fat dollop of offroad ability thrown in for good measure.

I like the X6, from a marketing perspective it's a sparkling effort, but just don't ask me to dish out accolades like "this is the SUV that re-wrote the book on SUV handling" because that in itself isn't much of an achievement after all.

 

[Mr Robert]

Oh dear, did I touch a sensitive spot?
First off "good-looking" would be completely subjective, secondly there are plenty other "fun-to-drive" cars out there WITH or WITHOUT utility that don't wear the BMW badge, Thirdly where did I say the X6 was a failure.

Did I hit a sore spot?

1. Yes, it was designed more with good looks in mind than for the car to be a lorry.

2. Yes, there are plenty of cars around there that is more fun to drive... but they are not "SUV":s - hence the redefinition of the segment or maybe a move into something new toghether with Infinity.

3. The article pionted in that direction, I did not mean for that to be laid on you.

I was just pointing out weaknesses in the argumentation. No need to get all defensive.

 

[Mr Robert]

If fine handling was the principle criterion against which SUVs are measured then the Forester STI would've won "World SUV of the Year" way back when. It never did of course...

I agree with you, in the category "a little less huge" SUV:s the Forester is a gem and almost without proper competition.

"Takes more than great handling to make a great SUV".

Sure, the X6 is getting heaps of accolades - particularly in the handling stakes vis a vis the favourable commentary in Top Gear, EVO and what not... So what if it handles spookily - I'd still never buy one. If all that it can do is drive on a rutted dirt road then the Cayenne GTS bests it for prestige, practicality and possibly driving enjoyment. The X6's looks still divide opinion and I will only pass judgement when I see it in the flesh.

Great handling in a huge car is impressive however ugly the car is. And in this case that ugly car is a real opinion divider. I was a bit unsure untill I saw it the other day. I was stunned.

I like the X6, from a marketing perspective it's a sparkling effort, but just don't ask me to dish out accolades like "this is the SUV that re-wrote the book on SUV handling" because that in itself isn't much of an achievement after all.

Maybe it is because the X6 is so little SUV and more of something else? I think it is one step away from SUV and therefore it get the praise. The way it does this mean the traditional SUV buyers will look the other way.

 

[Sunny]

That's strange, a 25.56 FT3 is quite a large volume capacity. Even larger than a BMW X5, that can't be right.
According to my sources:

BMW X6
570 - 1450 L
20.13 - 51.21 FT3

BMW X5
620-1750 L
21.89 - 61.80 FT3

BMW 5 Touring
500-1650 L
17.65 - 58.27 FT3

Mercedes E-class Touring
690-1950 L
24.37 - 68.86 FT3

Mercedes M-class
500-2050 L
17.65 - 72.39 FT3

Porsche Cayenne
540-1770 L
19.07 - 62.51 FT3

Still the cargo is quite large for its shape, practical enough for its target market.
I think the BMW did a good job on the X6, its a good looking and desirable car in my opinion.

I got the 25.6 cu ft from here BMW North America.
Road and Track also has the same number.

 

[Mr Robert]

I got the 25.6 cu ft from here BMW North America.
Road and Track also has the same number.

That has to be the maximum load capacity with rear seats folded, right?

 

[Alwing]

Source of information: BMW North America

Luggage/Cargo Capacity

"With 25.6 cubic feet of trunk storage and a massive 59.7 cubic feet of seat-down storage, the X6 boasts incredible room."

Source of information: The international BMW website

Luggage space in the BMW X6.

"Versatility needs room to unfold, so the BMW X6 offers a maximum 570 l of luggage space (enough for four golf bags) when all four seats are in use. Fold down the rear seat backs, and that figure climbs to a generous 1,450 l."

I guess BMW USA made a small mistake with the metric conversions.

570 Liters = 20.13 cubic feet
1450 Liters = 51.21 cubic feet

25.6 cubic feet = 725 Liters
59.7 cubic feet = 1690 Liters

Hopefully they'll correct this, it's misleading information.